Talk:List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured listList of dates predicted for apocalyptic events is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
May 30, 2018Featured list candidatePromoted

Eukaryotic extinction. Description contradicts the cited reference.[edit]

Under Scientific predictions

1.3 billion S. Franck, C. Bounama, W. Von Bloh It's estimated all Eukaryotic life will die out due to carbon dioxide starvation. Only prokaryotes will remain. [123]

However, in the reference paper [123] the text is "Eucaryotes and complex life extinct because of too high surface temperatures in the future." Carbon dioxide starvation is the fate of the procaryotes "The ultimate life span of the biosphere is defined by the extinction of procaryotes in about 1.6 Gyr because of CO2 starvation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:8480:1d00:d9ad:324d:618b:1165 (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2017‎ (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2018[edit]

Add : date: 1960 Who: Chief Apostle J.G. Bischoff by New Apostolic Chirch Description: On Christmas Day 1951, during service in Giessen, Germany, Chief Apostle J.G. Bischoff delivered his "Botschaft" ("message"), announcing that the Lord had made known to him that he would not die before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, during which the chosen people were to be taken into His kingdom (the First Resurrection). In 1954, this teaching became the church's official dogma. When Chief Apostle Bischoff died on 7 July 1960, his dogma about Christ's return had not been fulfilled. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Church#%22Botschaft%22_by_Chief_Apostle_Bischoff Bogdan.art (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We can't use another Wikipedia article as a source as per WP:CIRCULAR, and I'm not convinced the sources used to back up this claim at that article meet WP:RS. Please provide a reliable source that supports this claim, then we can think about adding it to the article. Freikorp (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Dates from science fiction?[edit]

It seems like a third section might be useful, one based on science or speculative fiction. I would not include ones where the apocalyptic event is contemporary to the release of the work (just too many). A time needs to be stated in the work (or calculable) so an example would be the Terminator film's "Judgement Day". There may be some debate how bad a dystopia has to be to qualify as apocalyptic, but it needs a significant triggering event and not slow transition like climate change (except for The Day After Tomorrow). Congrats on FL! StrayBolt (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@StrayBolt: I do not think that apocalypses from works of intentional fiction should be mentioned here, unless there were large numbers of people who earnestly believed that those apocalypses were real. Perhaps you could create a separate "List of dates of apocalyptic events in fiction" or something like that. I just do not think that mixing dates when the world ends in fiction with dates when people really, truly thought the world was going to end is necessarily a wise decision, especially since the use of the word "predicted" in the title of this list implies an actual belief that the world would end on that date, at least among certain groups of people. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Completely agree Katolophyromai. We would need a separate list for fictional mentions, they shouldn't be mixed in here. Freikorp (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Add more sections to break up long list?[edit]

The list of past predictions is very long. Since it has no sortable columns, could we break it into manageable sub-sections? Maybe: Prior to 1000, 1000 to 1899, 1900 to 1999, 2000 and after. The criteria for the sections are size for editing and consistent sections for linking. StrayBolt (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The list isn't sortable because there's only three potential sortable columns, and two of them definitely don't need to be sorted; it's already in chronological order so that doesn't need to be sorted, and having the description sortable would achieve nothing. I guess having the claimants sortable would help you group all the predictions by the same groups together; I can do that if you insist. I don't see breaking the table up as an improvement. I will note none of the reviewers at the lists featured review thought that was necessary. Freikorp (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I was not suggesting more sortable columns, but I was pointing out that no sortable columns allowed for breaking it up. My minor reasons for change include: noticed some slow down editing; although not heavily edited, having more sections can reduce edit conflicts; more sections can give more direct linking. Just a suggestion. StrayBolt (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)